NE C O B E L A C NECOBELAC project guide for trainers This booklet is a partial reproduction of the NECOBELAC topics produced by the NECOBELAC working team including all project partners and their collaborators. Texts were revised by Paola De Castro (ISS) and Reme Melero (CSIC). Editing and graphics by Sandra Salinetti (ISS). 1introduction NECOBELAC is a project funded by the European Commission within the 7th Framework Programme and led by the Istituto Superiore di Sanità (ISS), the main research body for public health in Italy. The project is committed to stimulating information transfer in the fi eld of public health on a global scale by creating a collaborative network spanning Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) countries, to increase free access to high quality scientifi c information. The ISS is supported by the project partners: University of Nottingham (UK), Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientifícas (Spain), Centro Latinoamericano y del Caribe de Información en Ciencias de la Salud - BIREME/OPS/OMS (Brazil), Instituto de Salud Pública (Colombia) and the Universidade do Minho (Portugal). NECOBELAC contributes to distribute knowledge about best practices in production, dissemination, retrieval and use of open access public health information across Europe and LAC countries. The involvement of different health related institutions in these regions will also strengthen scientifi c collaborations and improve the exchange of research data and information. 2project strategy The project strategy is based on the creation of a network of selected and highly qualifi ed European and LAC institutions which share the project aims and collaborate to provide relevant training programmes in scientifi c publication and open access. The project partners deliver a series of training activities addressed to future trainers (courses type T1) who will then replicate NECOBELAC training modules at local level, with the appropriate adjustments (courses type T2) (Figure 1). Training activities are developed within the three-year project term, but all those who take part in the NECOBELAC training T1 are committed to replicate the course thus guaranteeing a larger and longer impact and sustainability of the project. The attendants of the NECOBELAC T1 training courses are professionals already involved in scientifi c publication and open access who can thus provide useful feedback to address cultural differences and discuss the best approach to local training to overcome existing barriers to scientifi c communication. Training is organized in different geographical areas, both in LAC countries and Europe and is developed in the four project languages: English, Spanish, Portuguese and Italian. Local experts can be invited as a support to training activities both in T1 and T2 courses. 3NECOBELAC training on scientifi c publication and open access TR AI N IN G F O R TR AI N ER S LO CA L TR AI N IN G PRE-REQUISITES  institutional support  knowledge of local needs  availability of time  willingness to collaborate  ability to communicate NECOBELAC partners as teachers local experts invited Methods lectures, discussions and working groups Participants NON experts in the fi eld T2 activities can be developed also after the project term local experts invited FEATURE replication with adjustment of T1 training modules according to local needs NECOBELAC T2 trainers Methods plenary discussions and working groups Participants experts in the fi eld T1 activities are envisaged during the project term Figure 1. NECOBELAC training strategy T1 course T2 course 4topic maps: a support for training The topic maps based on a semantic web technology have been designed and developed as a support to the NECOBELAC training courses. Each course has to be modular, extensible, fl exible, portable and able to be re-purposed. Its content has to be independent from presentation and accessible through different contexts. Topic maps represent information using “topics” (any concept, from people, countries, and organisations to software modules, individual fi les, events, etc.), “associations” (the relationships among topics), and “occurrences” (information resources relevant to a particular topic). They have a triple subject-predicate-object structure (Figure 2). Topic maps have been created using the Ontopia technology as the framework to represent and offer a graphical visualisation of the structure of the training courses. This technology permits the connection of relationships among different factors, actors, and initiatives. Ontopia also has a navigator framework – a JSP tag library and Java API – which enables the development of web-based interfaces associated with topic maps. A web interface has been created based on the NECOBELAC topic maps. Part of its contents is available and searchable through the web, although it is still under construction from NECOBELAC site under the section NECOBELAC training activities. 5A searchable semantic database has also been developed, so that users will be able to send queries to this knowledge structure. Associations and role associations among topics, instances and their occurrences have been conceived taking into account most of the issues involved in scientifi c publication and open access. In the NECOBELAC topic maps, any topic represents a training module or sub-module corresponding to the contents of both courses: scientifi c publication and open access in public health. Any module/concept has a similar structure: title, abstract, scheme, extended text, some questions or points for discussion, bibliography, examples and a list of support materials. Figure 2. Graphical representation of a topic map topic topic topic MADE BY IS PART OF RELATED TO CREATED BY topic topic 6contents of the training courses The content list of the NECOBELAC courses is divided into two sections: 1) scientifi c publication; 2) open access. Each section is associated to different modules. Only the abstracts of the main modules of each section are reproduced here; the most up-dated description of all modules and associated online resources are available at the project website: http://www.necobelac.eu/en/training.php. Participants in T1 activities will organize local training T2 on the basis of the NECOBELAC contents for training courses which must be properly selected and adjusted according to: local needs, duration of the course, facilities, number of participants, number of trainers, etc. A list of questions as suggested points for discussion is also included for each section. A selection of online resources taken from the online topic maps is provided at the end of this booklet. 7section. Scientifi c publication 1. Introduction to scientifi c publication Types of publications 2. Scientifi c journals Starting a new journal Online technology management systems Improving an existing journal Managing a journal Editors Committees, editorial boards Publishers Editorial staff, marketing policy, advertisement Support to authors Economic models Quality of journals Dissemination and access 3. Scientifi c articles Writing an article Guidelines and standards Ethics Rights (copyright issues) 4. Peer review and quality indicators Styles of peer review Ethics Roles in peer review Reviewers Editors Committees, editorial boards Quality of journals Metrics Structure of NECOBELAC training modules 81. Introduction to scientifi c publication The publication process involves many activities stemming from information selection, the choice of the appropriate channel to distribute such information, manuscript production and handling, submission for publication, peer evaluation, and all those editorial activities which eventually lead to the document publication, distribution, use and impact evaluation. The publication process is complex and requires the knowledge of rules, standards and best practices in order to be carried out effectively. There are different types of publications (books, journals, grey literature, etc.) and many different channels to distribute them. The publication process involves the activity of many actors whose roles may overlap according to the organisation of the entire cycle. If the organisation is large and the budget available is suffi cient, each role is performed by an appropriate specialist; if the organisation is small and budget available is limited, the same persons may play different roles. The main actors of the editorial chain are: authors (as information producers), editors (as information “tailors”), publishers (as information managers), readers (as information users), librarians and information specialists (as information providers). They are supported by reviewers, copy editors, translators, technical writers, graphic assistants, photographers, printers, web masters, etc. who intervene at different stages in the publication process. Furthermore, the same persons may also have different roles in different contexts, for example, a reader may also be a writer, or a reviewer of an article and this adds new complexities the scientifi c publication game. abstracts of main modules 9The new opportunities offered by information and communication technologies represent a real challenge in the publication process and create new balances in favour of the most peripheral areas in the scientifi c information arena. 2. Scientifi c journals Communication received through scientifi c journals has four main purposes: 1. Recording and disseminating the knowledge obtained from research. 2. Evaluating scholarly works. 3. Identifying the scope and possible uses or applications of knowledge. 4. Preserving knowledge. These roles have been constructed and perfected by scientifi c journals over the last 300 years until becoming the only means of communication which can (through society’s recognition and acceptance) publish, evaluate and validate what is published. Scientifi c journals thus have a set of criteria and methods guaranteeing quality and truth or well reasoned doubt regarding what they accept and publish. Authors wishing to publish the results of their investigations must therefore, fi rstly, know and understand the requirements and criteria established by specialised scientifi c journals for receiving, evaluating, accepting and publishing scientifi c material, such author guidelines usually having been most clearly set out for prospective authors. Scientifi c journals use different genera or types of publications to comply with their mission: editorials, standard articles and their modalities, essays or articles for refl ection, reviews and summaries. Dissemination and access to scientifi c health information are 10 mediated by an international well established infrastructure, including publishing, indexing and evaluation of scientifi c journals. Journals from developing countries traditionally face several barriers to integrate these infrastructures, particularly regarding quality and perception of quality. Quality is indeed a central issue for scientifi c communication, which challenges scientifi c editors in order to better position their journals in the international information fl ow. 3. Scientifi c articles The journal article is still nowadays the most well-known and qualifi ed means of scholarly communication to spread knowledge and new results among the scientifi c community and to promote progress. Since communication is a crucial task of each scientist, the correct writing of a paper is of utmost importance, but not so easy: a scientifi c paper must be well organised to meet the needs of valid publication. To help potential authors in this work, since the second half of the Sixties, a scheme has been widely used among scientists to write their articles and this structure was offi cially adopted by the American National Standards Institute in 1979 (ANSI Z39.16-1979) as the IMRAD (Introduction, Methods, Results And Discussion) format. In the same year the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors issued the “Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals”. This document represents – among guidelines, standards and best practices of good writing and communication – the most widespread and valuable tool for authors to easily write clear reports of their studies. The “Uniform Requirements” are particularly interesting as, even though they analyze the multifold facets related to the whole editorial process, both from 11 the editors’ and the authors’ points of view, they illustrate the technical aspects on preparing and submitting manuscripts and, in this context, they also recommend the standard structure of IMRAD. In the second half of the Nineties, a debate was arisen on the appropriateness of this format for all kinds of scientifi c communication: the formal composition of the traditional scientifi c paper ia still a good one for original articles but can obviously be felt as a restriction for reviews, case reports, editorials, etc. Yet, the strict IMRAD scheme is not be considered as an arbitrary publication format as it is a direct refl ection of the process of scientifi c discovery and it has the advantage of helping the author to organise a research report in an unambiguous way following simple steps. 4. Peer review and quality indicators Journals play an important role in the evaluation and certifi cation of scholarly outputs, and their position within the landscape of scientifi c publications will depend on good practices and good management. Evaluation through the peer review system, for which a substitute has not yet been found, is the way to control the quality, originality and scientifi c rigor of papers. It can be carried out in different ways: blind, double-blind or online open peer review. A key objective of peer review is to fi lter and detect possible cases of fraud such as falsifying data, plagiarism or failure to declare potential confl icts of interest, although it is not an infallible system and should be evaluated periodically to detect possible biases. Quality and prestige do not always walk in parallel, the quality of content and editorial management system may be high but 12 to gain recognition and prestige it is necessary that the journal should persist in its goals for a certain period of time. Editors and editorial boards are directly involved in certifi cation of contents based on their quality; to achieve a quality mark is a guarantee to ensure the sustainability of the magazine. In this module the formal aspects to improve the quality of journals will be considered as well as certain strategies to attract articles from recognized authors in their fi elds. Visibility in journal management is also a relevant internal quality factor, for example, declaring criteria for acceptance of papers or measures to preserve the scientifi c integrity of the work. 13 1. Introduction to open access Meaning/defi nition Origins and timeline OA initiatives around the world Advocacy The effect of open access on citations 2. OA Repositories Defi nition and types Subject repositories Institutional repositories Data repositories Repository technologies and standards Repository software Repository development and management Service providers (repositories) Journals-Repositories coexistence Self-archiving Copyright issues 3. OA Journals OA Journals models Online Management systems Economic models to support OA journals Service providers (journals) Copyright issues 4. OA Policies Introduction Models How to implement an OA policy Directories of OA policies Examples in public health and related disciplines The effect of OA policies on authors’ behaviour section. Open access Structure of NECOBELAC training modules 14 1. Introduction to open access In February 2002, the Budapest Open Access Initiative – also known as Budapest Declaration or BOAI – was the fi rst declaration to defi ne Open Access (OA) literature as digital, online, free, and exempt from most copyright and licensing restrictions. Alongside BOAI, the Bethesda Statement and the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities, both in 2003, marked the beginning of what is now known as the OA movement. According to the Budapest Declaration, there are two complementary ways of achieving OA to scientifi c outputs: self-archiving in OA repositories (also known as the green route) and publishing in OA journals (also known as the gold route). OA repositories are digital archives which collect, preserve and disseminate scholarly outputs of either a specifi c area (disciplinary repositories) or of a particular institution (institutional repositories). The term “open access” is now widely used in at least two senses. For someone, “OA” literature is digital, online, and free of charge. It removes price barriers but not permission barriers. For others, “OA” literature is digital, online, free of charge, and free of unnecessary copyright and licensing restrictions. It removes both price barriers and permission barriers. It allows reuse rights which exceed fair use. Most of our success stories deliver OA in the fi rst sense, while the major public statements from Budapest, Bethesda, and Berlin (together, the BBB defi nition of OA) describe OA in the second sense. To remove ambiguity, Peter Suber and Steven Harnad have proposed the use of the term “gratis OA” for the removal of price barriers alone and “libre OA” for the removal of price and at least some permission barriers. There are various abstracts of main modules 15 misunderstandings about OA. It is not self-publishing, nor a way to bypass peer review and publication, nor is it a second-class, cut-price publishing route. It is simply a means to make research results freely available online to the whole research community and to other potential users of the research literature. 2. OA Repositories ArXiv, established in 1991 for the physics community, is generally considered to be the fi rst OA repository. Despite the establishment of other disciplinary repositories during the Nineties, the number of repositories was still very low at the end of the decade. The “boom” in the creation of repositories occurred in the new millennium, building on top of the OAIPMH technical foundation, and as a consequence of increased visibility of OA and OA awareness in the research community following the fi rst OA initiatives and Declarations (Budapest, Bethesda and Berlin). A digital repository is a mechanism for managing and storing digital content. Repositories can be subject or institutional in their focus. Putting content into an institutional repository enables staff and institutions to manage and preserve it, and therefore derive maximum value from it. A repository can support research, learning, and administrative processes. Repositories use open standards to ensure that their content is accessible, that is it can be searched and retrieved for later use. The use of these agreed international standards allows mechanisms to be set up which import, export, identify, store and retrieve the digital content within the repository (defi nition by Repositories Support Project, http:// www.rsp.ac.uk/). There are two main types of OA repositories: “Subject/Disciplinary repositories” (established to collect material in particular disciplines or subjects) and “Institutional repositories” 16 (established by individual research institutions to collect, preserve and disseminate the intellectual output of the institution). A third type of repositories could be considered: aggregators or portals that collect their contents from institutional and subject repositories. These aggregations can be done at a geographical level, subject domain, or document type. Currently there are more than 1600 repositories registered in the most important repository directories: ROAR-Registry of OA Repositories and OpenDOAR-Directory of OA Repositories. The geographical distribution of repositories is close to the world scientifi c output distribution, with almost 2/3 located in Europe and North America. 3. OA Journals The combination of type of access, publication license and copyright agreement of scientifi c journals have given rise to a range of journals from those to which access is restricted to subscribers and copyright is transferred exclusively to the publisher (not meeting any OA criteria), to those that are free for users and authors and copyright belongs to the author (meet all OA criteria). Focusing on the journals that meet all or part of the Berlin Declaration’s defi nition of OA, journals can be classifi ed into the following groups: 1. Existing journals, which after an embargo of 6 or 12 months, provide free online access to their articles (see examples in Highwire Press or in PubMedCentral). 2. Journals that immediately after their publication, are free/ gratis through Internet (fi nancial barriers are removed). 3. OA journals, in which authors retain all or part of the copyright and pay a fee for the publication of their articles. BioMed 17 Central journals or journals published by the Public Library of Science (PLOS) are examples of these. 4. Journals that follow a hybrid model where two forms of online publication coexist, a classical form in which access is restricted to subscribers, and another which implies paying a publishing fee to make the article freely available on the Internet. The cost per item varies depending on the publisher, but in the case of commercial publishers, it is around $3000 (examples: Sponsored Article from Elsevier, Oxford Open from Oxford University Press or Open Choice from Springer). 5. OA journals, gratis for readers and without any fee to publish, in which copyright belongs to the author or the publication licenses allow self-archiving. Examples of this type are included in the Directory of Open Access Journals, DOAJ. 4. OA Policies OA policies can vary from broad statements of support for, and promotion of, OA, to more prescriptive research-funder “mandates”, as well as particular and specifi c institutional policies that declare support for OA as a principle and encourage academics to publish in OA, and which can also set out criteria for the overall goals and day-to-day operation of OA Institutional Repositories (IRs). The various OA declarations and manifestos issued worldwide fall into the fi rst category. Research-funder mandates add weight to an institutional message of support for OA, because they stimulate compliance with an OA strategy (like depositing a post-print in an OA repository) as a condition when the researcher signs the research funding contract. Institutional mandates, which effectively equate a given institution’s explicit OA policy, encourage their academics to publish research either in 18 OA journals or deposit refereed fi nal drafts in the IR or a subject- based repository. The executive arm of an institutional OA policy could be the IR, and those responsible for the IR will produce the IR policy; such policy will cover both the overall mission and objective of the IR and will detail the more specifi c criteria to ensure that decision making procedures – regarding the more routine operational aspects of the IR – are in line with the overall IR policy. At all levels, policy implementation needs to consider and make explicit the benefi ts and impacts of the OA policy on the various stakeholders involved. There are three directories where existing policies are registered: 1. JULIET-SHERPA: http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/juliet; 2. MELIBEA: http://www.accesoabierto.net/politicas; 3. RoarMap: http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup. Mandate statements prevail over recommendations but control mechanisms for monitoring do not exist yet or have not yet been clearly determined. 19 points for discussion section. Scientifi c publication  What is the role of scientifi c journals?  Where does the responsibility of a journal article lie?  How can editors guarantee quality in publication?  Where can you fi nd instructions to authors?  What is the purpose of writing a paper?  What is the IMRAD format?  What are the advantages of following IMRAD format?  Which writing rules should be followed?  Which are the main steps for preparing and submitting manuscripts to scientifi c journals?  How to choose among existing guidelines according to their specifi c issues?  Is there any suggested way for conforming to journals’ Instructions to Authors?  What can be defi ned as unethical behaviour in scientifi c publishing? List all possible cases of misconduct.  Which are the main documents that help editors dealing with misconduct behaviour in scientifi c publishing?  Are there specifi c associations aiming at enhancing responsible and effective communication in science?  Which is the recommended reference style in biomedical journals?  Which criteria guide the decision to include a table or a graph to report data?  Who can be considered the author of a scientifi c article?  Can you submit the same manuscript to two different journals at the same time?  Can you submit an article which has been rejected by a journal to a different journal?  Which are the main reasons for confl ict of interest and who is involved?  What do you do if you suspect plagiarism?  Can you defi ne a guest, ghost or gift author? 20 section. Open access  How would you start setting up an OA advocacy strategy in your institution? What components do you think would be essential to such a strategy?  What do you believe to be the potential incentives and disincentives for authors to disseminate their work in OA channels?  Do you believe that OA mandates are a necessary OA policy instrument?  How would you translate an OA policy that is basically a supportive statement for OA into an effective OA policy to be complied with?  What do you think would be the most appropriate term(s) in your language, and national and institutional contexts, to best convey the concept of "advocacy" when using it in the domain of Open Access and OA respositories?  What are the reasons that have threatened the traditional subscription model of scientifi c journals?  What kind of economic model would you suggest to a new journal created by a non profi t organization?  How would you go about encouraging authors to self-archive in OA repositories?  What, in your opinion, are the different facets that an institutional repository (IR) OA policy should incorporate to ensure the IR’s use?  Who do you identify as the key actors for OA advocacy activities in your institution?  What is the qualitative differential between data provision and service provision?  What are some examples of services provided to end-users searching across repositories?  What are some important services that repositories can provide to their host institution that could constitute valid arguments in favour of implementing an institutional repository?  Why do scientists value the Impact Factor (IF) of their published work?  How has Open Access been proven to affect the IF of research?  What advantages do OA forms of research dissemination have over traditional forms of research publication when considering the citation impact? 21 recommended online resources section. Scientifi c publication American Association for the History of Medicine (AAHM) http://www.histmed.org/ American Medical Writers Association (AMWA) http://www.amwa.org Association for Medical Education in Europe (AMEE) http://www.amee.org Association of Canadian Editors (EAC) http://www.editors.ca/ Association of Earth Science Editors (AESE) http://www.aese.org/ Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers (ALPSP) http://www.alpsp.org.uk Australian Societies of Editors http://www.editorscanberra.org/ AuthorAID http://www.authoraid.info/ Board of Editors in the Life Sciences (BELS) http://www.bels.org/ British Standards Institution (BSI) http://www.bsigroup.com/ Committee On Publication Ethics (COPE) http://publicationethics.org/ Copy Editor http://www.copyediting.com/ Council for the Advancement of Scientifi c Writing (CASW) http://casw.org/ Council of Editors of Learned Journals (CELJ) http://www.celj.org/index.php Council of Science Editors (CSE) (formerly Council of Biology Editors) http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/ Digital Curation Centre http://www.dcc.ac.uk/ 22 Eastern Mediterranean Association of Medical Editors (EMAME) http://www.emro.who.int/EMAME/index.htm Editorial Eye http://www.eeicom.com/ EQUATOR Network http://www.equator-network.org/ European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI) http://www.earli.org/ European Association of Health Information and Libraries (EAHIL) http://www.eahil.net/ European Association of Science Editors (EASE) http://www.ease.org.uk/ European Medical Writers Association (EMWA) http://www.emwa.org/ ICMJE - Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals http://www.icmje.org/urm_main.html International Association of Translation and Intercultural Studies (IATIS) http://www.iatis.org/ International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) http://www.icmje.org/ International Council for Scientifi c and Technical Information (ICSTI) http://www.icsti.org/ International Council for Technical Communication (INTECOM) http://www.intecom.org/ International Federation of Science Editors (ICSU) http://www.icsu.org/ International Network for the Availability of Scientifi c Publications (INASP) http://www.inasp.info/ International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) http://www.ismpp.org/ Journal of Electronic Publishing (JEP) http://www.journalofelectronicpublishing.org/ Latindex http://www.latindex.unam.mx/ 23 Learning and Teaching Subject Network for Education http://escalate.ac.uk/ Mediterranean Editors and Translators (MET) http://www.metmeetings.org/ Publishers' Association (PA) http://www.publishers.org.uk/ PubMed Central http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed Red de Revistas Científi cas de América Latina y el Caribe, España y Portugal (Re- dalyc) http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/ Scientifi c Electronic Library Online (SciELO) http://www.scielo.org World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) http://www.wame.org/ section. Open access Acceso Abierto a la Ciencia http://www.accesoabierto.net Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) http://www.soros.org/openaccess Charles Bailey Bibliography http://www.digital-scholarship.org/ Creative Commons http://creativecommons.org/ Digital Repository Infrastructure Vision for European Research (DRIVER) http://www.driver-repository.eu/ eIFL http://www.eifl .net/cps/sections/home Enabling Open Scholarship (EOS) http://www.openscholarship.org/jcms/j_6/accueil 24 Eprints http://www.eprints.org/ JISC-Open Access http://www.jisc.ac.uk/openaccess Open Access Directory (OAD) http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Main_Page Open Access Scholarly Information Sourcebook (OASIS) http://www.openoasis.org Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA) http://www.oaspa.org/ Open Archives Initiative (OAI) http://www.openarchives.org/ Openaccess.net (Germany) http://www.open-access.net/de_en/homepage/ Openaccess.se (Sweden) http://www.kb.se/OpenAccess/Hjalptexter/English/ OpenAIRE http://www.openaire.eu/ Public Knowledge Project (PKP) http://pkp.sfu.ca/ Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) http://www.arl.org/sparc/ SHERPA http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/ SURF Foundation http://www.surffoundation.nl/en/Pages/default.aspx The Directory of Open Access Repositories (OpenDOAR) http://www.opendoar.org/ The Open Citation Project (Opcit) http://opcit.eprints.org/ Printed by Publishing Unit, Istituto Superiore di Sanità  August 2010 info@necobelac.eu